A note, a statement and many questions

How are you gonna justify this? (Pic taken from online)

I have reproduced here the statement made by the Attorney General and published in The Star today. I have also asked certain questions which i hope - but doubt - will be answered satisfactorily.

IN Teoh Beng Hock’s death inquiry today, the officers representing the Public Prosecutor, in assisting the said inquiry, intended to put in a note found in the deceased’s sling bag which contains an indication that may throw some light regarding his death.

However, the existence of the note was disputed on the grounds of delay in disclosure, failure to furnish a copy of the said note to the counsel representing the deceased’s family and suppression of evidence by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers vehemently denies any suppression of evidence (and) instead was equally startled when the discovery of the note was made known and thereafter caused further investigation to be carried out.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers was informed of the discovery of the note by the investigating officer, ASP Ahmad Nazri bin Zainal, on Oct 7, 2009, some two over months after Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

So at their own admission, they knew of this note for around 10 months (around 300 plus days) but only decide to reveal it NOW!!!! Why??????

According to the investigating officer, it was not found when he first searched the deceased’s sling bag after the incident.

Not found???? So how did it mysteriously and miraculously appear then? Why should we even bother about it?

The note was immediately translated and there was sufficient cause to send it to be analysed by a document examiner of the Chemistry Department.

The said note was sent on Oct 9, 2009 and subsequently on Oct 20, 2009.

The document examiner prepared his reports and they were considered by the Attorney-General himself where the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, was not convinced of the authenticity of the note due to insufficient samples to verify the handwritings, in particular the Chinese characters.

So if he was not convinced then, why is he trying to tender it now?

In addition, the note was said to be discovered some two over months after the death and that this would raise suspicion over its authenticity and discovery.

I FULLY agree with this statement! Very, very suspicious. So again, why??????

Having considered these factors, Tan Sri Abdul Gani was of the view that the note should not be tendered until and unless the investigating officer could provide satisfactory explanation as to its discovery.

So by wanting to tender it now, can i conclude that the IO provided a satisfactory explanation? Still, if he did, then why wait til now???? Did it take him SO LONG to come up with an explanation? More suspicious...

As regards the note, the Attorney-General’s Chambers was earlier briefed by the investigating officer that he conducted a thorough search after being advised by the psychiatric (sic) that ordinarily there would be a note left in a suicide case.

However, recently, the investigating officer owned up by admitting that he did in fact find the note when he searched the sling bag on July 17, 2009 but did not realise the significance of it as there were other documents found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters.

Wait a minute - so he discovered it when he searched the bag? Teoh's body was found on the 16th June 2009. Why was his bag only searched by the IO 1 MONTH LATER??? If this was not the first time he searched the bag, i asked the same question i did earlier - how did the note suddenly appear?????

And the IO did not realise the significance of it????? Why??? The AG's statement said he did not realise it "as there were other documents found". WHAT?????????????? And the IO did not realise it could have been significant because it was "written in both Chinese and Roman characters"?????? So? Is it because he did not understand it? How and why could he have not bothered with it????????

As a result of this, the Attorney-General decided to put the note in and directed the investigating officer to explain this in court to avoid any repercussion in future and let the coroner decide on its weight after considering the explanation by the investigating officer and the document examiner’s report.

Therefore, there is no suppression or withholding of evidence and that the decision for not tendering it earlier was made based on the document examiner’s report as well as the discovery of the note which gave rise to suspicion.

If the decision not to tender it earlier was for those reasons, so WHY is the AG tendering it only NOW?????? What has happened since then????????

The Attorney-General’s Chambers will tender a document as evidence only and until it is satisfied that any shroud of suspicion surrounding it is lifted.

Unfortunately, all this only raises more suspicion.

Jabatan Peguam Negara
9 August 2010

I teach my students every year that it is only in the movies that you see lawyers tendering important letters late in a court case, catching everyone by surprise. From next year onwards, i will have to tell my students this only happens in movies AND in Malaysia.

Malaysia boleh!